>And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is its

>And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is itself a misnomer. "If true"...like I said there are just certain groups/individuals who can not wrap their minds around the idea immigration status is separate and distinct from criminal law. The crazy thing to me is not even where these ideas come from, I guess it just doesn't matter, but the length people go to in order to maintain their present state of thought. Just do a simple Google Search of "is immigration law civil or criminal", you don't even need to click a result, Google gives you the Answer. >Could you point to some sources that explain the difference between "unlawful", "illegal", and "criminal" as you understand them? Its not so much as I understand them, as their definitions in a legal context. "Unlawful"/"illegal" are terms that may be used interchangeably and by definition indicate the violation of a law (either civil or criminal), so all criminal acts are unlawful/illegal but not all unlawful/illegal acts are criminal. For example, the Court ruled that Apple unlawfully/illegally fixed e-book prices[1], yet that is not criminal nor to we go around calling Apple an "illegal company". That is the pejorative nature of "illegal" in the immigration context, where it implies criminality...in fact is likely the reason you didn't know immigration law is civil and presumed a parallel with criminal trespass. Source: myself, but I can point you to Black's Law Dictionary, I feel confident their definitions will be consistent with my own. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc